[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 12, 4:11*am, Marc Wielage wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:56:47 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article ):

The problem, as I see it, is that most "popular" music has no meaningful
acoustic equivalent. The mics' outputs are simply raw material to be altered
however the producer cares to. This is not seen as a creative option, but an
unalterable necessity.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

The answer to that is... it depends. *I can think of certain pop recordings
(even on vinyl) that had very wide dynamic range. *Michael Martin Murphey's
"Wildfire" (a #3 hit from 1975) would be one of them.

But dynamic range alone is no determination of sound quality. *Sometimes,
emotion, feel, and melody are more important. *I can think of tons of major
Motown hits going back to 1961 that have maybe 5dB of dynamic range at best,
even on the original vinyl... but it doesn't matter, because they're great
songs, absolute classics that will last for decades. *(Note that these are
not slammed, hard-limited, digitally-compressed productions; they're done
with all analog gear, often tube gear, 40 or 50 years ago.)


--MF
_________________
The bean counters at the record cos don't care Max. So there's "5dB
dynamic range at best"? Squash it to 1dB and pin it to digital VU -.5
dB and re-sell it to the suckers!!!

That's the mentality my friend. Sad but true.

-CC